Automatically hiding spam works

Post Header

Published:

Wed, 22 Nov 2017 16:30:39 +0000

Translations:

Tags:

For the past several weeks, the Archive of Our Own has been dealing with an unusually high volume of spam works created to advertise live streams of sporting events. We've taken a number of steps to deal with these spam works, and in the next few days, we'll take one more: automatically hiding works that our spam detection service believes are spam.

We've been using this spam detector behind the scenes for a while now, and it has a 99.3% accuracy rate when it comes to identifying spam works and comments on the Archive. This means there is a small chance some non-spam works will be incorrectly marked as spam.

If your work is marked as spam, we'll send you an email to let you know. Our Abuse team will review your work as soon as possible and unhide it if it isn't a spam advertisement. Works will not be reviewed for other Terms of Service violations while in the spam queue.

We apologize to any users whose works are incorrectly marked as spam and to everyone who is currently waiting for us to review and fulfill their invitation request. We realize this situation is frustrating, but these steps are necessary to help us deliver a spam-free experience to all our users.

Thank you for bearing with us, and if you see any spam that has escaped our net, please report it to Abuse!

Update on November 24, 00:40 UTC: Automatic hiding of spam works is now enabled.

Actions

Comments

Sorry, this news post doesn't allow comments.

Highly_Illogical Wed 22 Nov 2017 04:32PM UTC

It would be nice if you gave us an idea of what can induce the system to mark something as spam so we can do our part to avoid it.

Comment Actions
- Thread
1. Account Deleted Wed 22 Nov 2017 04:39PM UTC
  
  I think the problem with this would be that spammers would also be able to avoid the filter, thus making it less effective. As well, spam detection systems (I have no idea what AO3 is using) are rarely custom, so they might not know how it spots spam.
  
  Comment Actions
2. 1. Highly_Illogical Wed 22 Nov 2017 05:53PM UTC
    
    Fair enough, I guess we'll risk it...
    
    Comment Actions
3. GoldenFalls Wed 22 Nov 2017 06:34PM UTC
  
  A lot of spam screening software use AI learning to come up with their algorithms, so there's probably not any set rules to avoid anyway. I think it's likely that extreme parody crack that is intentionally written to be nonsensical might be more likely to get flagged than other works.
  
  Comment Actions
alexiel-neesan (alyyks) Wed 22 Nov 2017 04:52PM UTC

Yay less spam!

Comment Actions
- Thread
Account Deleted Wed 22 Nov 2017 04:58PM UTC

Thanks so much to our Abuse team and collaborating OTW committees for your hard work devising solutions to the spam problem! You are fabulous. <3

Comment Actions
- Thread
Foxglove87B Wed 22 Nov 2017 05:35PM UTC

While this seems promising, what are the false positive rate and the approximate spam to legitimate content ratio?
If there are 1000 legitimate works for every spam work, even a minuscule 0.7% false positive rate means the system will hide 7 legitimate works for every spam work hidden.

Comment Actions
- Thread
1. Not quite (Guest) Thu 23 Nov 2017 01:52AM UTC
  
  I think your premise is flawed. According to your math, of 1000 legitimate works, 7 will be accidentally hidden while 993 remain visible. It isn't 7 legitimate works hidden for every 1 spam work hidden, it's 993 spam works hidden for every 7 legitimate works hidden.
  That percentage is just a best guess; it could be better or worse than that in reality.
  
  Comment Actions
2. 1. Foxglove87B Thu 23 Nov 2017 06:48PM UTC
    
    You failed to consider the "1000 legitimate works for every spam work" part, which is kind of a big deal since the problem I described is typical of situations with a relatively low percent of true positives.
    
    Comment Actions
  2. 1. Still not quite (Guest) Thu 23 Nov 2017 11:19PM UTC
      
      The number of legitimate/spam works is not relevant, the 0,7% false positive is of works already hidden and not works in general.
      So, of all the works in the archive, a given number of works will be hidden because the AutoMagic system will assume it is spam. Out of this number of works that the system flagged, 0,7% will be false positives. The 0,7% is of the works assumed to be spam by the system and not of all the works.
      So, using your number for an example, "1000 legitimate works for every spam work":
      I you assume 1 million works on AO3, about 1000 of those would be spam and flagged as so by the automatic system. Between those works flagged and hidden, there will be a 0,7% of false positives hidden incorrectly (meaning 7 legitimate works in this case).
      So what you would have is, roughly, 7 legitimate works hidden by mistake, 993 spam correctly flagged and hidden, and 999000 works the system ignored because it recognized it as not spam and didn't touch it.
      
      Comment Actions
    2. 1. :) (Guest) Fri 24 Nov 2017 09:25AM UTC
        
        And a lot more time for Abuse to address the 7 works hidden by mistake (rather than addressing the 993 spam works).
        
        Comment Actions
        
        Parent
        
        Parent Thread
        
        Thread
      2. Foxglove87B Fri 24 Nov 2017 01:16PM UTC
        
        >the 0,7% false positive is of works already hidden and not works in general.
        That is not what false positive means.
        The meaning of false positive is probability of a positive on test A conditional to A being negative.
        What you are using is probability of A being negative conditional to a positive on test A.
        Nobody uses your definition because it is very sensitive to the ratio of positive to negative in the population you are testing, while the correct one is only sensitive to the quality of the testing process.
        If you want to make up your own flawed definitions, don't go around "correcting" people that follow the norm, darling.
        
        Comment Actions
        
        Parent
        
        Parent Thread
        
        Thread
      3. (Previous comment deleted.)
        
        (2 more comments in this thread)
    3. da not following (Guest) Fri 24 Nov 2017 04:34PM UTC
      
      Slightly higher than 99% is a low percent?
      I think what's confusing me is the number 0,7%. The only percentage we know is: "99.3% accuracy rate when it comes to identifying spam works and comments". That remaining 0,7% =/= false positives, because it has to include false negatives as well, and it counts comment as well as works, so if you have 1000 legitimate works it's likely that less than 7 will be hidden, irregardless of the huge number of works being correctly marked as spam.
      I don't understand how you get "the system will hide 7 legitimate works for every spam work hidden". It's that ratio of 7 legitimate works hidden per 1 spam work hidden, when legitimate works hidden is the far smaller percentage. Wouldn't it be as the other are pointing out, something more like for every 7 legitimate works hidden, 7000 spam works are correctly hidden? That is, isn't the inverse true? (Maths are not my specialty, and googling false positive in relation to spam gave me articles like: https://www.networkworld.com/article/2327896/lan-wan/what-is-a-false-positive-.html which are for me hard to parse.)
      It's not great that some works (really, likely crack and people putting links to suspect websites in their work) will be hidden, it will be a low number, easily rectified, as opposed to the problem now of having humans slowly go through everything?
      
      Comment Actions
    4. 1. Foxglove87B Fri 24 Nov 2017 05:41PM UTC
        
        That number is not especially important, as it is the 1000 legit per 1 spam ratio, they are there only to show how even very favourable numbers can result in poor performance.
        I chose 0.7% because usually false positive ratio and false negative ratio are not too different. Maybe one is 5, 10 times the other, but rarely more.
        The rest of your comment shows a lack of knowledge in the field of statistics: it will be hard for you to understand the issue you're stuck on without conditional probability at the very least.
        Let's make it even simpler anyways.
        You have 10010 works. Of those works, 10 are spam, 10000 are legitimate.
        You have a very good spam system thay always catches spam works (0% false negative rate) and only mistakes 1 legit work for spam ofut of 100 legit works (1% false positive rate).
        Your system will find all 10 real spam works, and will confuse 1% of 10000 legit works as spam. 1% of 10000 is 100.
        In conclusion, your system will claim to have found 110 spam works, of which only 10 are spam: that means only 1 in 11 works marked as spam will be actual spam.
        The problem gets worse the more legit works there are for each spam work, and the higher the false positive rate.
        Clear enough?
        
        Comment Actions
        
        Parent
        
        Parent Thread
        
        Thread
  3. GoldenFalls Fri 24 Nov 2017 01:12PM UTC
    
    While I agree that OP's math is wrong, it would be nice to know the ratio of legitamate works to spam works. If the ratio of spam works to legitamate ones posted every day is one-to-one, seven legitamate works woud be hidden per thousand legitamate works—but if the spammers are posting more spam works than legitimate works get posted every day, then the number of incorrectly hidden works per thousand would go up, and the inverse is true.
    It'd be nice to guess around how many legitimate works per thousand are getting hidden, which you can't do with the current information without also knowing an average ratio of spam works to legitamate works posted.
    
    Comment Actions
  4. 1. Foxglove87B Fri 24 Nov 2017 01:20PM UTC
      
      You should be more wary of anonymous commenters that misunderstand basic statistical terms.
      For reference: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_positive_rate
      
      Comment Actions
    2. 1. GoldenFalls Fri 24 Nov 2017 01:55PM UTC
        
        Oh shoot, you're right. I read their comment and thought what the archive had said was the ratio of spam works to legitamate works hidden instead of the plain accuracy rate. I should have reread the update before posting. Thanks for the correction.
        
        Comment Actions
        
        Parent
        
        Parent Thread
        
        Thread
  5. alrun Fri 24 Nov 2017 06:00PM UTC
    
    I suspect the archive post is not actually using the proper, technical definition of accuracy.
    Formally
    accuracy = (true positives + true negatives)/(total number of tests)
    In other words, if there are a millon works in the archive, 7000 would be misclassified, if the accuracy was actually 99.3%. As we do not know whether those 7000 represent false positives (legitimate works marked as spam) or false negatives (spam works not picked up), there is no way to figure out how many legitimate works would be hidden. We can speculate - as a few have done here :) - but the problem is that we simply do not know based on the information given.
    But as I said, I doubt we are ment to interpret it in the formal sense. I would be pretty interested in the false positive rate as well, if nothing else then from a purely stats fascination standpoint (as somebody who deals with the biostats of diagnostic test in my professional life ...)
    
    Last Edited Fri 24 Nov 2017 06:02PM UTC
    
    Comment Actions
  6. 1. AnonEhouse Sat 25 Nov 2017 12:49AM UTC
      
      I agree that it's unlikely AO3 means us to take the 99.3% in the most technical sense. I hope they mean that out of every 1000 works the Spam Detector *hides* (no knowing how many it checks) 7 of them could be incorrectly categorized as Spam.
      That would be a much lower number than .7% of all works and comments posted.
      
      Comment Actions
CelticGHardy Wed 22 Nov 2017 07:59PM UTC

Okay, so, question. How can we tell on our side if it's been marked as spam? Is there going to be a little notification in our email, a symbol next to the work? Is it going to be blacked out? I haven't experienced it, so I don't know what to look for.

Comment Actions
- Thread
1. theknightanon Wed 22 Nov 2017 08:14PM UTC
  
  They'll send you an email (and I think the work would be temporarily hidden, from the sounds of it). In all likelihood it's very very very unlikely an normal fic would be marked as spam - they're targeting spammers who are posting "fics" full of nonsense links to boost SEO rankings.
  
  Comment Actions
2. 1. Little_Firestar84 Wed 31 Jan 2018 10:21AM UTC
    
    they send you an email, just like they just did with me :)
    (and nope, it wasn't spam :))
    
    Comment Actions
3. Jan (Guest) Wed 22 Nov 2017 10:03PM UTC
  
  "If your work is marked as spam, we'll send you an email to let you know."
  
  Comment Actions
4. 1. CelticGHardy Wed 22 Nov 2017 11:53PM UTC
    
    This is why I should read better.
    
    Comment Actions
ShayneyL Thu 23 Nov 2017 05:32AM UTC

Any idea when invitations will start going out again?

Comment Actions
- Thread
1. theway Thu 23 Nov 2017 09:29AM UTC
  
  It looks to me like you can already sign up for an invitation. However, since they were closed down, a lot of people will want one, so the queue will be longer. At the current queue length and daily rate, it'll take ~80 days for someone at the end of the queue to be invited.
  
  Comment Actions
2. 1. ShayneyL Thu 23 Nov 2017 12:14PM UTC
    
    Holy crap. And I thought it was bad when I had to wait two weeks. :-)
    Thanks!
    
    Comment Actions
  2. 1. samjohnsson Fri 24 Nov 2017 12:48AM UTC
      
      The "how long" is pretty inaccurate at the moment, as the word on the street is that a lot of the spam/junk accounts were just waiting for the queue to reopen. Having the spam checks in place was one of the requirements for reopening the queue at a more reasonable rate, so hopefully the pace will pick up!
      
      Comment Actions
    2. AnonEhouse Fri 24 Nov 2017 03:11AM UTC
      
      I just looked and it now shows they've increased the number of invite requests per day to 2000, so it should be around 11 days.
      
      Comment Actions
    3. 1. ShayneyL Fri 24 Nov 2017 05:56AM UTC
        
        Thanks! That's great news.
        
        Comment Actions
        
        Parent
        
        Parent Thread
        
        Thread
      2. AnonEhouse Sat 25 Nov 2017 04:42PM UTC
        
        They've increased it again, cutting the wait time way down. If you have already requested an invitation, you can check your position on the waiting list. There are currently 16296 people on the waiting list. We are sending out 5000 invitations per day.
        
        Comment Actions
        
        Parent
        
        Parent Thread
        
        Thread
        
        Al_JustATrekkie Sun 26 Nov 2017 01:13AM UTC
        
        I'm assuming that includes spammers seeking accounts? I knew ao3 was popular, but I have to admit I didn't think they were popular enough to have 16,000 + people waiting to get in, even with a several week backlog. Mind you, I'm always happy to be proven wrong ;-)
        
        Comment Actions
        
        Parent
        
        Parent Thread
        
        Thread
        
        AnonEhouse Sun 26 Nov 2017 01:34AM UTC
        
        I don't know how AO3's spam filtering works, but I doubt they can prevent a spammer's email from getting on the waiting list. I'd be happy to be proved wrong, it just seems likely any weeding out at that stage would also accidentally kick out honest folks.
        
        Comment Actions
        
        Parent
        
        Parent Thread
        
        Thread
        
        AnonEhouse Thu 30 Nov 2017 02:04AM UTC
        
        And they've changed the number of invites going out again. So currently less than 5 days wait.
        If you have already requested an invitation, you can check your position on the waiting list. There are currently 8395 people on the waiting list. We are sending out 2000 invitations per day.
        I'm still occasionally finding and reporting a spam account, but mostly now they're not staying up very long- I find them in the most recently added works.
        
        Last Edited Thu 30 Nov 2017 02:05AM UTC
        
        Comment Actions
        
        Parent
        
        Parent Thread
        
        Thread
898700 (ghostwriter) Fri 24 Nov 2017 02:43AM UTC

Can we see what a spam work looks like? I'm curious, as I haven't seen any AO3 post that wasn't a fic, even if I read about five AO3 fish a day...

Comment Actions
- Thread
1. AnonEhouse Fri 24 Nov 2017 03:17AM UTC
  
  They vary, but the current spammers (I've seen and reported a LOT) are all about Live Streaming Sporting Events, they put them in real fandoms, apparently selected at random, so I found them by searching recently posted works without sorting by fandom.
  The works I've seen have all been the same- there's a couple of sentences listing a sporting event and urging you to live stream it, repeated enough times to make up a paragraph or more.
  
  Comment Actions
2. 1. Byrdie Sun 03 Dec 2017 09:07PM UTC
    
    Yeah, those wankers are back again at it today. Just saw at least two identical "stories" on the New Works page. Hope nobody clicks on any of their links or goes to the pages they mention, because those look like piracy/scam artist sites to me and you could end up with malware or the gods know what going wrong if you fall for their line.
    
    Comment Actions
XPerimental Mon 04 Dec 2017 01:24AM UTC

Lol, I was only checking this out because my most recent PWP was marked as spam... But good to know that it wasn't because someone reported it as such :P
I don't think there's an issue if something is hidden temporarily until it's reviewed as spam (*wink* to whomever reviewed mine, hope it was your kink), though I do hope that if it is confirmed as spam that our lovelies on the Ao3 team follow up afterwards so that if it's all from the same account they can be warned not to do it again, maybe?

Comment Actions
- Thread
1. AnonEhouse Tue 05 Dec 2017 03:20PM UTC
  
  When I report spam, AO3 replies :
  The spam content you brought to our attention has been found to violate our Terms of Service; as such, the users have been banned and the content removed.
  Spammers don't get warnings- they're not fans who've made a mistake, or not realized they were doing something not allowed. Spammers just get kicked off.
  I can't imagine ANY actual fan work being mistaken for Spam by an AO3 volunteer, so I'm sure as soon as someone looks at your work, it will be unhidden.
  The Spammers will never give up, I guess. They seem to hit AO3 with a massive flood of spam once a year, to the point AO3 has to temporarily turn off the invite queue while they handle it.
  
  Comment Actions
2. 1. XPerimental Wed 06 Dec 2017 02:03AM UTC
    
    That's awful. (that spammers hit like that, I mean) I just thought it was funny that my coffee-adventure-hard-smut got marked as spam, but figured it was because I'd posted often?
    But jeez I haven't been on Ao3 a whole year yet, I hope they can figure out something so they don't have to deal with this as much :(
    But then again, the spam AI probably helps :)
    
    Comment Actions
  2. 1. AnonEhouse Wed 06 Dec 2017 02:16AM UTC
      
      AO3 deliberately doesn't say what the Spam detector uses to mark something as suspect (the spammers could very well be reading this post!) so I don't know what triggers it. I'm guessing it uses a number of different indicators, and maybe they change if a lot of spam gets through anyway.
      I don't think anyone has come up with a foolproof way of keeping spam out while still allowing users to post & comment. Whenever the site seems slow, I run a spam hunt, just in case. ;^)
      
      Comment Actions
3. zephyr21 Fri 09 Feb 2018 08:19AM UTC
  
  Same as me. I just posed a pwp and it was flagged as spam. How long did you get them unbidden? I don’t know if I need to wait longer because I wrote it in Chinese.
  
  Comment Actions
4. 1. XPerimental Mon 17 Sep 2018 07:36PM UTC
    
    Given the time, probably already back up.
    I'm going to say mine was down for, at most, 48hours, but most likely less than that.
    
    Comment Actions
AnonEhouse Wed 06 Dec 2017 08:48PM UTC

Spammers are still at it- Dec 6. I just found 5 more spam accounts, plus 8 spam posts that were anonymous.
We must remain vigilant! ;^)

Comment Actions
- Thread
bible Sat 09 Dec 2017 05:06AM UTC

Cool, I'm the special .7% that got incorrectly marked as spam, am I? Great knowing the hard work I put into my writing has gone to waste. Was it the stylistic use of special characters? Trust me. I don't like sports. I just want people to read my writing. Hope this gets resolved quickly and I'm notified when my work is in the clear again. (That's a hard 'when,' not 'if.') Thanks.

Comment Actions
- Thread
1. AO3_Policy_and_Abuse (Official) Sun 10 Dec 2017 09:29AM UTC
  
  Hi,
  We regret any confusion caused when your work was incorrectly identified as spam. Your work was confirmed as "Not Spam" and is visible to other users.
  Unfortunately, the filter will occasionally mark works as spam that are not. We do try to swiftly review works that have been initially identified as spam of any kind. In general it should never be longer than a few hours, though our response times can and will vary because we are such a small team of volunteers.
  Matty
  AO3 Abuse
  
  Comment Actions
MissIzzy Sat 09 Dec 2017 07:37PM UTC

Can we have any idea of how long it's going to take the abuse team to review our work? One of my fics just got flagged.

Comment Actions
- Thread
1. MissIzzy Sat 09 Dec 2017 08:33PM UTC
  
  Never mind, they cleared it. For those with the same question, I think it took about half an hour.
  
  Comment Actions
Cassiebobassie Sun 10 Dec 2017 04:25AM UTC

As someone who was just tagged as spam and has written a story taking part in a challenge—one that is meant to go live today, I am very upset by this. I get your goals, but it would be nice to have an ETA for a solution. I don’t know what to do...repost? Wait? Just give up? I’ve been writing fanfic for a few months—-and even when I got in a car wreck and suffered a concussion I wanted to keep writing. And this weekend, when I lost power because of a snow storm I still worked on my fic on my phone while freezing so it could go live...and half an hour before it’s supposed to hit the challenge master post I see it’s marked as spam. I’m feeling ready to give up. I’ve kind of had enough challenges the past two months. My tenth work on archive and this happens. Over 12 hours later and my work is still hidden. I have no one to contact. I just don’t know what to do...

Last Edited Sun 10 Dec 2017 04:56AM UTC

Comment Actions
- Thread
1. AO3_Policy_and_Abuse (Official) Sun 10 Dec 2017 09:39AM UTC
  
  Hi,
  We regret any confusion caused when your work was incorrectly identified as spam.
  Unfortunately, the filter will occasionally mark works as spam that are not. We do try to swiftly review works that have been initially identified as spam of any kind. In general it should never be longer than a few hours, though our response times can and will vary because we are such a small team of volunteers.
  No works should ever be hidden for twelve hours; I can confirm there are currently no works hidden as spam right now. As noted in the email that is sent out, you can contact the Abuse committee directly via our form, which is also linked at the bottom of every page: http://archiveofourown.org/abuse_reports/new. We can then help with any technical issues you may be experiencing.
  Matty
  AO3 Abuse
  
  Comment Actions
2. 1. Cassiebobassie Sun 10 Dec 2017 12:51PM UTC
    
    Thank you for replying. I did click that link but there were bullets saying who should use that form to reply and none of those seemed to fit my situation. I can see that my fic is no longer hidden (I’ve been keeping my phone off for hours because it’s now 30 hours without power), so I haven’t been able to check frequently. I’m glad it’s resolved. Thank you. I do know you are working to make the experience great for everyone (e.g. no spam).
    
    Comment Actions
Small_Hobbit Thu 11 Jan 2018 04:17PM UTC

Having had a ficlet marked as spam and then unscreened only a couple of hours later, I appreciate it's a quick process. However, it is quite upsetting to receive the initial email, so would it be possible to send a standard response just to let the author know it's now unscreened (rather than leaving them to check regularly) and thanking them for their understanding?

Comment Actions
- Thread
1. Charity_Angel Wed 17 Jan 2018 08:14PM UTC
  
  Yes, this would be nice. It was only a few minutes for me, but it would have been nice to be told that it was sorted.
  
  Comment Actions
Spencebox Thu 25 Jan 2018 01:42AM UTC

guess I’m part of the .7% percent cause my fic just got hidden and I got an email that it might be spam. This has never happened before and I hope they unhide it asap!

Last Edited Thu 25 Jan 2018 01:42AM UTC

Comment Actions
- Thread
1. joytiny Sat 27 Jan 2018 10:18AM UTC
  
  Same. Did AO3 unhide your fic already? Mine was hidden like an hour ago
  
  Comment Actions
2. 1. Spencebox Sat 27 Jan 2018 05:29PM UTC
    
    mine was unhidden like twenty minutes after I got told it was hidden like its pretty quick, hopefully yours gets back up soon!
    
    Comment Actions
yarnofariadne Mon 29 Jan 2018 05:41PM UTC

Is there an estimated time on the turnaround for unhiding incorrectly marked spam works currently? Mine's been hidden for over 6 hours now and I haven't heard anything, and other comments saying their turnaround was under 30 minutes kind of has me concerned that I've slipped through the cracks.

Comment Actions
- Thread
CommodoreoftheCrackFleet Tue 25 Dec 2018 04:00AM UTC

I accidentally marked someone's comment as spam and I want it undone but I have no idea how!

Comment Actions
- Thread
Vampire_goth_girl Wed 15 May 2019 06:05PM UTC

Is there anyway to unspam a comment, at first I thought I might of accidentally deleted it but now I think I accidently hit spam on a comment I was reading. I hit comments so it sort of jumped me and I made the mistake of touching the screen to scroll but hit (what I thought was delete at the time but now I'm pretty sure since I can still see it in inbox and reply but not in work that I actually hit) spam. Anyway to fix this mistake as the comment was in no way spam and actually delightful encouragement from a reader
Edit: noticed I'm not the only one with this problem, hopefully this actually gets a response

Last Edited Wed 15 May 2019 06:09PM UTC

Comment Actions
- Thread
Tumbledrylow Tue 25 Jun 2019 05:59AM UTC

Hi, I have a work that is only for people to send prompts to and today it was hidden by administration, I'm still relatively new to the site so I was wondering if this had to do with it.
Thanks in advance for any help
Sincerely,
S.B.Tumbledrylow

Comment Actions
- Thread
seamonster Sun 30 Jun 2019 01:23PM UTC

I sent an email last night, but I'm commenting here too. 16 of my works were hidden and have been for almost 12 hours. Still no email response, can someone please tell me why they were hidden so I can rectify the problem? I'm not a spammer and my readers keep reaching out to me on Twitter asking if I'm okay. I would like to fix this quickly please.

Comment Actions
- Thread
1. Loki_of_Asgard (Guest) Tue 02 Jul 2019 04:35AM UTC
  
  Did you try filing a policy and abuse report about it? I don't think they check the comments on these posts, but if your works were hidden then they should know about it! (you can file a report to them by clicking "Report Abuse" at the bottom of any page)
  
  Comment Actions
2. 1. seamonster Tue 02 Jul 2019 10:28AM UTC
    
    I've sent three tickets so far. The only response I've yet to receive is the automated email saying they've received the tickets. This is day 4.
    
    Comment Actions

AO3 News

Post Header

Actions

Comments

Highly_Illogical Wed 22 Nov 2017 04:32PM UTC

Comment Actions

Account Deleted Wed 22 Nov 2017 04:39PM UTC

Comment Actions

Highly_Illogical Wed 22 Nov 2017 05:53PM UTC

Comment Actions

GoldenFalls Wed 22 Nov 2017 06:34PM UTC

Comment Actions

alexiel-neesan (alyyks) Wed 22 Nov 2017 04:52PM UTC

Comment Actions

Account Deleted Wed 22 Nov 2017 04:58PM UTC

Comment Actions

Foxglove87B Wed 22 Nov 2017 05:35PM UTC

Comment Actions

Not quite (Guest) Thu 23 Nov 2017 01:52AM UTC

Comment Actions

Foxglove87B Thu 23 Nov 2017 06:48PM UTC

Comment Actions

Still not quite (Guest) Thu 23 Nov 2017 11:19PM UTC

Comment Actions

:) (Guest) Fri 24 Nov 2017 09:25AM UTC

Comment Actions

Foxglove87B Fri 24 Nov 2017 01:16PM UTC

Comment Actions

da not following (Guest) Fri 24 Nov 2017 04:34PM UTC

Comment Actions

Foxglove87B Fri 24 Nov 2017 05:41PM UTC

Comment Actions

GoldenFalls Fri 24 Nov 2017 01:12PM UTC

Comment Actions

Foxglove87B Fri 24 Nov 2017 01:20PM UTC

Comment Actions

GoldenFalls Fri 24 Nov 2017 01:55PM UTC

Comment Actions

alrun Fri 24 Nov 2017 06:00PM UTC

Comment Actions

AnonEhouse Sat 25 Nov 2017 12:49AM UTC

Comment Actions

CelticGHardy Wed 22 Nov 2017 07:59PM UTC

Comment Actions

theknightanon Wed 22 Nov 2017 08:14PM UTC

Comment Actions

Little_Firestar84 Wed 31 Jan 2018 10:21AM UTC

Comment Actions

Jan (Guest) Wed 22 Nov 2017 10:03PM UTC

Comment Actions

CelticGHardy Wed 22 Nov 2017 11:53PM UTC

Comment Actions

ShayneyL Thu 23 Nov 2017 05:32AM UTC

Comment Actions

theway Thu 23 Nov 2017 09:29AM UTC

Comment Actions

ShayneyL Thu 23 Nov 2017 12:14PM UTC

Comment Actions

samjohnsson Fri 24 Nov 2017 12:48AM UTC

Comment Actions

AnonEhouse Fri 24 Nov 2017 03:11AM UTC

Comment Actions

ShayneyL Fri 24 Nov 2017 05:56AM UTC

Comment Actions

AnonEhouse Sat 25 Nov 2017 04:42PM UTC

Comment Actions

Al_JustATrekkie Sun 26 Nov 2017 01:13AM UTC

Comment Actions

AnonEhouse Sun 26 Nov 2017 01:34AM UTC

Comment Actions

AnonEhouse Thu 30 Nov 2017 02:04AM UTC

Comment Actions

898700 (ghostwriter) Fri 24 Nov 2017 02:43AM UTC

Comment Actions

AnonEhouse Fri 24 Nov 2017 03:17AM UTC

Comment Actions

Byrdie Sun 03 Dec 2017 09:07PM UTC

Comment Actions

XPerimental Mon 04 Dec 2017 01:24AM UTC